Article A |
Excellent Flu Vaccine Information from Safe Minds |
|
Fellow Parents,
A majority of the flu vaccines in the 2007-2008 season will contain the mercury-based preservative called “Thimerosal.” Thimerosal has been linked in animal research to autism. Additionally, research has recently linked Thimerosal to heart disease and Alzheimer’s disease. We need to get the word out so that Americans will insist upon mercury-free flu vaccines. SafeMinds is asking you to help with a ‘Spread the Word on Flu Vaccines’ campaign to reach the American public via email. In order to increase the likelihood that your emails will be forwarded onward without being filtered as spam, copy the text below into an email as ‘plain text’. Change the first paragraph to include your own personal story, which could stress the recent research on Alzheimer’s and Heart Disease if your loved ones have concern on those conditions. Send the email to only 5 to 10 people at a time. Do not include any links to websites in the email. When done, we ask that you send an email to eksafeminds@gmail.com indicating the total number of people you contacted. This will help us to determine the success of this email campaign. Thank You!
Suggested Email:
Friends,
My son Luke had a severe reaction to his childhood vaccines and was later diagnosed with autism. Through much research, I learned that his vaccines contained toxic levels of a preservative containing mercury. We had him tested and found that he has mercury poisoning. He is now on his way to recovery thanks to treatments to remove mercury from his body. I’ve become interested in what other negative effects may be caused by mercury in vaccines, and have found that it puts people at greater risk of Alzheimer’s Disease and Heart Disease in addition to autism. So don’t take flu vaccines with ‘thimerosal’ mercury! Please read the information below and pass it on to everyone that you love and care about. … Scott
Top Ten Reasons to Avoid Getting a Mercury-based Flu Vaccine this winter:
- Avoid injecting mercury into your body. Everyone knows how dangerous mercury can be to your health but very few know that it is a common ingredient used in flu vaccines. A majority of flu vaccines this winter contain a preservative called “thimerosal” that contains mercury, the third most toxic substance on earth
- Protect yourself from heart disease. Ohio State University researchers published in May 2007 that Thimerosal activates an enzyme that causes plaque build-up in the arteries which has been linked to heart disease and heart attacks.
- Reduce your risk of developing Alzheimer’s Disease. A scientific paper to be published later this year will describe tests showing that mercury in the laboratory causes the same brain abnormalities found in Alzheimer’s disease.
- Play the odds. An American has less than a 1 in 150,000 of dying from the flu. An American is far more likely to develop heart disease, Alzheimer’s, or autism, all of which have been linked to mercury toxicity.
- Stay healthy this winter. The mercury in flu shots can impair your immune system, making you more vulnerable to infections. Good hand washing and avoiding those who have the flu are the safest ways to stay healthy this winter
- Prevent your body from becoming a hazardous waste storage site. According to EPA guidelines the flu vaccines contain 250 times the amount of mercury that is defined as hazardous waste. And unused flu vaccine at the end of the flu season must be shipped back to the manufacturer to be disposed of as a hazardous waste.
- Take control of your own health while the government agencies debate. The Surgeon General’s office recommended removal of Thimerosal from childhood vaccines in 1999. The CDC has not yet followed the Surgeon General recommendation regarding flu vaccines. The NIH reported to Congress in 2006 that there were serious flaws with the statistical evidence used by the CDC to support their position.
- Avoid an unproven and possibly unsafe health treatment. The British Medical Journal reported last October that the evidence from a comprehensive review of flu vaccine studies shows that the flu vaccine has little or no benefit, and also that little comparative evidence exists on the safety of these vaccines.
- Prevent toxic overload. Thimerosal is a particularly toxic form of mercury because it blocks the process used by the body to get rid of mercury and also other toxins. One dose of Thimerosal could push a person past a “toxic tipping point”.
- Don’t be one of the last Americans to take a mercury-based flu vaccine. Seven states have banned Thimerosal from most vaccines, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment in July that prevents taxpayer money from being used in 2008 to administer mercury-based flu shots to young children. It is only a matter of time before Thimerosal is banned from all vaccines.
Please see www.safeminds.org for more information.
|
ARTICLE B |
CDC: Mercury in Vaccines Damaged Your Child. Or Not. |
|
MORE FROM DAVID KIRBY
Posted September 26, 2007 | 04:50 PM (EST)
If you were informed that mercury in vaccines might double the risk of your son developing motor tics, increase his risk of "phonic tics" by nearly two-and-a-half times, and possibly cause speech, attention or behavioral problems in school, would you still allow him to be injected with the heavy metal -- which, by the way, is 100 times more neurotoxic than that lead coating on his Chinese toys?
And what if your government's most trusted public health agency, the CDC, announced it had funded a study that replicated the findings of a 2003 CDC analysis, which also detected an association between vaccine mercury and tics, and that researchers were now suggesting "the potential need for further studies" between thimerosal and the neurological disorder?
And what if the investigators also said they detected a small but statistically significant association between early thimerosal exposure and impaired "behavioral regulation" in boys?
Or what if they said that increased neonatal exposure (28 weeks or younger) was associated with "significantly lower scores in verbal IQ scores in girls," and "significantly poorer performance" in articulation tests among all children?
And what if the authors further noted that speech problems were also found in the 2003 CDC study, where they said thimerosal exposure was associated with "an increased risk of language delays" at one test site?
Finally, what if those same authors claimed that their findings "suggest a possible adverse association between neonatal exposure to mercury and language development?"
You might think that the government was getting ready to admit that injecting organic mercury into newborn babies was a dumb idea.
But you'd be wrong.
Instead, brace yourself for some gauzy, reassuring reports in the upcoming media cycle about a New England Journal of Medicine study on thimerosal and "neuropsychological outcomes," in which, we are to believe, the connection is nil.
"Our study," the authors concluded, "does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines (and) deficits in neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years." They did not look at autism, ADHD or other major disorders.
On a conference call this afternoon from Atlanta, CDC officials gushed that these data offered nothing but "very reassuring news" about vaccine safety.
The associations found were "small," the investigators wrote, "and almost equally divided between positive and negative effects." In other words, for every "bad" thing associated with thimerosal, there was a negating "good" thing, such as improved finger tapping, or higher IQ scores among boys.
Indeed, the authors reasoned that the "higher scores on the performance IQ tests in boys" who received the most thimerosal, "makes it difficult to draw general conclusions about possible effects of neonatal mercury exposure from vaccines on intellectual abilities."
(If they really mean that thimerosal increases IQ levels in males, then sign me up for a double-dose flu shot this year).
But there might be another explanation. "Children who had been exposed to higher levels of thimerosal were more likely to have mothers with higher IQ scores," noted the authors, who did adjust test scores for maternal IQ -- though it's unclear if their study size, (1,040 kids), was large enough to accurately conduct such a precise statistical correction.
The study had several more flaws, any of which may have served to bring down the relative risks of neurological outcomes associated with increased levels of mercury exposure.
For example, 70% of the families selected for the study declined to even participate, yielding an unusually low response rate of 30% (the ideal is 70%) and data "that may have been influenced by selection bias," the authors conceded.
Next, any child born below 5.5 pounds was excluded from the study, which doesn't make sense, given that an 8 pound baby injected with the hepatitis B vaccine at birth was exposed to 35 times the EPA daily safety level for mercury, (calculated by bodyweight) while a 4 pound infant was slammed with 70 times the EPA level.
The authors also failed to adjust for any treatments these children received for their conditions. All kids were enrolled in major HMOs, where they presumably were eligible for an array of physical, behavioral and/or pharmaceutical therapies. Remember, these children were vaccinated between 0-2 years, but evaluated at 7-10 years. By not accounting for potentially years of speech and other therapies, the investigators "may have ameliorated the potential negative effects of thimerosal exposure," they admitted, and "could have biased the results toward the null hypothesis."
Despite these statistical pressures to drive the numbers downward, the associated risk for tics among boys was a real standout.
Boys who received the highest amounts of thimerosal in the first seven months of life were determined by evaluators to be 2.19 times more likely to have motor tics at age 7-10 years, and 2.44 times more likely to have phonic tics, than boys with the lowest exposures.
Any relative risk between exposure and outcome that exceeds 2.0, incidentally, is considered to be proof of causation in US courts of law.
The researchers did not differentiate between "transient" tics, which go away within a year, and "chronic" tics, which can last a lifetime. Nor did they distinguish between "simple" and "complex" tics.
I know the temptation is strong to think, "Well, it's just tics." But I suggest consulting the literature, which paints a more disturbing picture, especially if it's your kid we are talking about.
The Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders defines "simple" motor tics as "brief, meaningless movements like eye blinking, facial grimacing, head jerks or shoulder shrugs," that usually last less than a second. It says that "complex" motor tics cause slower, longer, more intense movements, "like sustained looks, facial gestures, biting, banging, whirling or twisting around, or copropraxia (obscene gestures)."
On the phonic side, "simple" tics are called, "meaningless sounds or noises like throat clearing, coughing, sniffling, barking, or hissing." Complex phonic tics include, "syllables, words, phrases, and such statements as 'Shut up!' or 'Now you've done it!' The child's speech may be abnormal, with unusual rhythms, tones, accents or intensities."
There is also the "echo phenomenon," (so familiar to autism parents) characterized by "the immediate repetition of one's own or another's words." Coprolalia, meanwhile, is a tic "made up of obscene, inappropriate or aggressive words and statements."
Severe behavioral problems are sometimes associated with tics, as well, and "there is some evidence that temper tantrums, aggressiveness, and explosive behavior appear in preadolescence and intensify in adolescence."
Finally, many children with both phonic and motor tics are diagnosed with Tourette's disorder, which frequently causes "aggressiveness, self-harming behaviors, emotional immaturity, social withdrawal, physical complaints, conduct disorders, affective disorders, anxiety, panic attacks, stuttering, sleep disorders, migraine headaches, and inappropriate sexual behaviors," the Encyclopedia says.
(Interestingly, Tourette's disorder is three-to-four times more common in males than females, the same ratio as autism, ADD and ADHD).
Now, if "simple" tics include head jerks and barking; and "complex" tics can entail biting, banging and screaming obscenities; and if thimerosal can more than double the chance of tics in boys; then Atlanta, we have a very big problem.
It's perplexing that the CDC can report replicating a doubled risk for tics in boys, and an increased risk for speech disorders and attention and behavior problems in other kids, and still insist that this is all "very reassuring news."
I posed the question on the conference call today, and got nothing even resembling an answer (an opinion that was backed up by a producer from ABC News Nightline).
So I will ask it again here.
Given that the CDC has just reported that thimerosal might increase the risk for tics among boys, how is it possible, in addition, to publish the following two phrases within the same report?:
"The findings...suggest a possible adverse association between neonatal exposure to mercury and language development."
AND
"Our study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury...and deficits in neuropsychological functioning
|
Article C |
More from Dan Olmsted – The Age of Autism: he’s back! |
|
A Letter from the Editor
Welcome to Age of Autism, the nation's first daily Web newspaper for the environmental-biomedical community – those who believe the autism epidemic is a health crisis that requires urgent action; that autism is an environmentally induced illness, that it is treatable, and that children can recover.
For the most part, the major media in the United States aren't interested in that point of view, they won't investigate the causes and possible biomedical treatments of autism independently, and they don't listen to the most important voices – those of the parents. We will do all those things, and more.
Continue reading "A Letter from the Editor"
Olmsted on Autism: I'm not vaclempt!
By Dan Olmsted
If there is one word I'd like to see banished forever from the dictionary of autism cliches, it would be "emotional." You know what I mean -- "Lawsuits and emotion vs. science and childhood vaccines," trumpets a piece in the Wall Street Journal; "confronting the contentious and highly emotional issue of whether early childhood vaccinations might have caused autism in thousands of children," as The New York Times described the recent vaccine court hearing; "officials from federal health agencies and medical societies tried to calm the fears around this emotional issue," said NBC's Robert Bazell.
Read more
TACA is proud to be one of the sponsors to see Dan Olmsted’s work continue.
|
Article D |
Neurological Problems Not Linked to Thimerosal, Study Says |
|
By SUZANNE SATALINE Wall Street Journal
September 26, 2007 5:17 p.m.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119083835476340331.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Federal researchers said they found no link between a vaccine preservative containing mercury and mental acuity and behavioral problems in children immunized in the 1990s--findings that are not likely to end parental fear that mercury has caused childhood disorders.
The study of 1,107 children by the Centers for Disease Control explored whether a correlation existed between the amount of thimerasol exposure in the first seven months of life and performance on 42 tests measuring verbal, motor and intellectual acuity. The study did not find that those exposed to thimerasol consistently suffered in tests measuring word recall, hyperactivity, stuttering, intelligence or other areas. The study is to be published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine.
The study did not try to see whether thimerasol was linked to autism, a highly charged issue that will be the focus of another research project by the CDC to be released next year, officials said.
Anne Schuchat, an assistant surgeon general with the CDC called the results of the new study "very reassuring for parents' whose children were immunized in the 1990s. Manufacturers removed thimerosal from vaccines upon request by the federal government in 1999, after being bombarded by complaints from the public.
The study sought to calm critics by including on its advisory panel Sallie Bernard, executive director of SafeMinds, a consumer-advocacy group focusing on mercury's link to disorders. Ms. Bernard said she dissented from the conclusions, in part, because she was troubled that boys in the study who had been exposed to higher levels of the preservative faced twice the risk of having motor and phonic tics --including noises caused by an involuntary tongue movement--than boys who received a smaller dose.
The results, "are inconclusive and the interpretation of the data is too sweeping," said Ms. Bernard, an Aspen, Colo., parent of an autistic child.
Dr. Schuchat said that particular data will be studied further by the CDC and outside pediatric experts.
Paul A. Offit, chief of infectious diseases at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, said the findings on tics were "coincidental, not causal." In a commentary that accompanied the study, he bemoaned the alarm that has been caused by parents and the government since drug companies removed thimerosal from vaccines.
"The public has not been reassured. They continued to be scared of vaccines," says Mr. Offit, who has served on the board of Merck & Co. "It really diverts attention and resources from much more promising leads in the causes of autism."
The CDC study included children, aged 7 to 10, who were enrolled in certain managed care groups from birth. Researchers sought children exposed to thimerasol through vaccines in the 1990s, from birth to 28 days, in the first seven months of life and through the mother in the prenatal period. A small number of the children had not been vaccinated. Researchers performed 42 neuropsychological tests measuring the children's speech, motor skills, and intelligence.
Write to Suzanne Sataline
Dear A-CHAMP subscribers:
On September 27, 2007 the New England Journal of Medicine will publish a study entitled, "Early Thimerosal Exposure and Neuropsychological Outcomes at 7 to 10 Years." For more than two years we at A-CHAMP have been hearing rumors of a new study that "exonerates" thimerosal, despite the fact that the study results were supposed to be kept strictly confidential.
Now the rumors have been turned into hype - another government funded study that tries to spin data and clear thimerosal of any suspicion of causing neurodevelopmental disorders. The study authors claim in their "Conclusions" that "[o]ur study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years."
The statement is plainly false. The study's conclusions do not reflect the study's data or the limitations of the study,
Unfortunately we have come to expect misleading statements – some might say fraudulent statements – from studies emanating from the CDC and their associates. It is not merely the fact that the authors of the study are burdened by large conflicts of interests - almost all of the 18 study authors have worked for vaccine manufacturers, received money from them, or performed research on their behalf. What is truly shocking about this study is that it does, indeed, find significant associations between thimerosal-containing vaccines and tics, speech, executive functioning and attention, but irresponsibly dismisses the associations. The study did not even look at children with autism - that is the subject of another uncompleted study - children with autism may have been excluded from this study causing a skewing of the study results.
Fortunately, an advocate from our own community was an external consultant to the study, participated in its development from the outset, and is intimately familiar with the data and methodology. She has dissented from the study's conclusions. In addition, our colleagues and fellow parents at Safe Minds will be issuing a critique of the study in the near future. We are also told that the study data will be made publicly available so that independent researchers may examine it and draw their own conclusions.
Although detailed analysis of the study is beyond the scope of this letter below are some key points that, cause us to distrust this study as another attempt to manipulate the scientific and public debate on thimerosal to the detriment of the health and safety of America's children:
1. The Study's Claim of No Causality is Contrary to the Study's Data
The study authors claim that the data disproves causality when in fact, several findings show a negative effect on neuropsychological functioning warranting more study. At least one such adverse association was also found to be associated with low dose thimerosal exposure in two studies done recently in the United Kingdom. As with earlier studies hyped by vaccine promoters, the study is unable to prove or disprove causality. The blanket dismissal of the troubling neuropsychological outcomes in this study is disingenuous and misleading.
2. Children with autism were excluded from this study
The early media contacts we have received suggest that this study shows no association between thimerosal and autism. In fact, the study specifically did not look at children with autism. The exclusion of children with autism from the study may have undermined the power of the study to draw any conclusions about thimerosal.
3. The Study's Authors Misrepresent Previous Toxicokinetic Studies of Thimerosal
The study authors falsely claim that research by Burbacher et al. at the University of Washington (distribution of thimerosal as compared with methylmercury in infant monkeys) shows that ethylmercury is safer than methylmercury. But the authors focus only on the blood "half-life", ignoring data, showing twice as much inorganic mercury trapped in the brains of monkeys than from same dose of methylmercury.
4. The Study's Methodology has Serious Limitations Negating Any Conclusions Drawn
Major flaws that that causes a large underestimation of neurological adverse effects burden the study: 70% of the families picked at random for the study failed to participate in the study. This kind of bias in epidemiological studies is well known to distort even large studies of health effects. (See , for example, NY Times Magazine, "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy" by Gary Taubes 9/16/07). It is well established that people who choose to participate in this kind of study are probably very different than those who refuse to participate (the "healthy person" or "complier" effect); especially when the ones who refused to participate said they were too busy.
Simply put: if you have a kid with ADHD or mild ASD or other neurodevelopmental disorders, you are likely to be busier, more stressed, and less available than the mother of a healthy normal child. This phenomenon serves to amplify the effect of the "complier", the "healthy families," - those who do cooperate with the study - confounding or confusing the study's results. The only truly cooperative parents who were included in the study were those with relatively trouble-free kids
5.Major Conflicts of Interest Burden Almost Every One of the 18 Study Authors
Many of the study authors have either worked for or received money from vaccine manufacturers. Others are employed by the CDC, which has been criticized by an IOM committee for its inherent conflict of interest in promoting vaccines while simultaneously monitoring safety. Many of the remaining study authors have conducted studies for vaccine manufacturers. The conflicts of interest cast doubt on the validity of the study, especially of the clearly biased "discussion" points.
6. The High & Low Thimerosal Exposure Groups Too Small to Draw Conclusions
In addition to the number of children of the study being too small to draw statistically significant conclusions, the numbers of children in the high exposure group and the low exposure group were far too small to draw conclusions. Yet the study ignored this limitation and drew sweeping conclusions of no causality.
7.Vulnerable Children Were Excluded from the Study; Early Intervention Was Ignored
Children with a birth weight under 5 lbs. 8 oz. were excluded from the study further skewing the results, as these children are likely more vulnerable to thimerosal than larger babies. In addition, the fact that early intervention may have reduced deficits such as speech delay detected by neuropsychological testing of children aged 7-10 was not accounted for in the study results. There also was no analysis of combined prenatal and postnatal mercury exposures.
8. The Study Fails to Account for the Subset of Children with "Efflux Disorder"
Only approximately 1000 children participated in the study, out of more than 3000 that were recruited. In addition to the "complier" bias discussed above, the study sample size is too small to accurately estimate the adverse effect of Thimerosal on the subset of the population who have a problem in mobilizing and excreting mercury. While the study's author's focus on the average time it takes for mercury to clear from the blood, itself misrepresented, we know that in 15% of the population this average is greatly exceeded. It is these children who are vulnerable to the effects of mercury from thimerosal. This study fails to account for the effect of mercury from vaccines on this subset of children.
These are but a few of the serious problems with the study and the way the data have been presented. We look forward to the forthcoming SAFEMINDS critique of the study and thank them for their continued close monitoring and analysis of the scientific research that affects our children.
In the meantime, if you see headlines stating that "Vaccines Cleared in New Study" or "New Study Finds Thimerosal Safe" know that we are all again being played, and that those who we should be able to trust are playing with the truth and the health of our children.
Sincerely,
Bob Krakow, for A-CHAMP
|
Article E |
CNN - Read this before you get the Flu Shot |
|
Health.com -- Nobody wants to get the flu this year. The dreaded, head-pounding, body-aching, feverish, nauseating, cough-fest packs equal parts misery and inconvenience.
Only about a third of Americans get the flu vaccine each year.
But nobody wants to get a shot that might be unnecessary or ineffective, either. So, while some experts worry aloud about a 1918-like flu pandemic, most of us -- well aware of the risks of getting the virus, from being sneezed on at the office to living with a toddler -- are not lining up to get the shot. In fact, only a third of us even bother.
The truth is, while the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and most mainstream docs are pushing the flu vaccine, the latest science suggests it just doesn't work very well. So, should you or shouldn't you? Here, the answers to your flu-shot questions.
How effective is the shot?
The flu shot is only as good as the educated guesses of a group of vaccine researchers across the globe. Every February, they try to predict which flu viruses will work their evil during the next fall and winter. Their three top choices are put into the vaccine. The CDC claims that vaccine will be 70 to 90 percent effective against just those strains of flu.
"We hope that these smart scientists who get together with the vaccine producers make the right call," says immunologist Dr. Randy Horwitz, medical director of the University of Arizona's School for Integrative Medicine. But sometimes they don't, partly because the virus mutates from year to year. In 2003-2004, the CDC admitted that it completely missed the virulent Fujian flu strain that hit hard that winter.
In the 2005-2006 season, in which the CDC said the match between the vaccine and the virus was good, a strain not included in the vaccine hospitalized 31 children in Houston. Also, two recent studies found that the shot may be less effective for people with weaker immune systems, so its effectiveness can depend on how well your body responds to the vaccine.
Will it make me sick?
Even if it doesn't work, it can't hurt to get the shot, right? For most people that may be true. Millions of vaccinations are administered each year, but since 1991, only about 26,000 adverse events have been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Most of those were fever, rash, headaches, hives, or, very rarely, seizures. The most common side effect is swelling at the injection site on your arm.
And any bad reactions, thought to be your immune system's way of gearing up after the exposure to dead virus particles in the vaccine, typically ease after a few days. (Manufacturers are required to verify that each batch of vaccine used for injections contains no live flu viruses. But people with egg allergies shouldn't get the shot because the vaccine is manufactured using eggs.)
Still, some researchers aren't comfortable with the safety data. Dr. Tom Jefferson, coordinator of the Vaccines Field for the Cochrane Collaborative, an international group of researchers, reported last year in the British Medical Journal that he had found only six limited studies on safety after reviewing 206 studies on the vaccine. That, he says, is a surprisingly small number considering the widespread use of the vaccine and its mixed bag of ingredients.
Osteopathic doctor Sherri Tenpenny, author of "Vaccines -- The Risks, the Benefits, the Choices: A Resource Guide for Parents," cautions that only small populations and short-term info are used to measure safety. Adverse-events reporting, for instance, is done for only 2 to 14 days after an injection and it's voluntary.
Here's another concern: Except for about 8 million doses, the flu vaccine contains a preservative, thimerosal, that is 49 percent mercury, a known neurotoxin. While the latest research seems to disprove any link between thimerosal vaccines and autism in children, the debate still rages, and several states have prohibited the use of thimerosal in children's vaccines. Yet supplies of mercury-free flu vaccine are limited due to manufacturing capacity. If you want to avoid thimerosal, you may have to make a special request to your health-care provider in advance.
Is the nasal vaccine better than the typical shot?
Hard to say, but the latest news on FluMist may leave you skeptical. Earlier this year the manufacturer, MedImmune, had trouble getting an OK to market the vaccine for kids under 5. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration found ongoing problems at the company's plant in Great Britain -- bacterial and fungal contamination as well as the use of a disinfectant banned by the European Union. Eventually, the company fixed the problems and, in September, received approval for the under-5 set.
Unlike the shot, this vaccine contains live but weakened viruses. When inhaled, these viruses can survive in the nose and throat long enough to trigger the immune reaction that fights off flu, but will be killed by the higher temperatures in your lower respiratory tract. The CDC does not believe these viruses can mutate into a form that can survive. The nasal vaccine is only approved for healthy children ages 2 to 17 and adults ages 18 to 49 who aren't pregnant. (Pregnant women and people with chronic conditions can get the shot.) The nasal vaccine does not have any thimerosal.
Federal guidelines on who should -- and shouldn't -- get vaccinated
Who really needs a shot?
The flu kills. Each year nearly 40,000 people in the United States die from flu complications like pneumonia and heart failure. And more than 200,000 are hospitalized due to flu. The people at highest risk have lowered defenses: children ages 6 months to 5 years, pregnant women, people older than 50, and anyone with a chronic condition like asthma, diabetes, and heart or blood disorders. The CDC recommends they all get vaccinated.
Your Health Tools
MayoClinic.com: Health Library
Healthology: Health Video Library
But what if you're healthy and are not in a high-risk group? Should you get vaccinated as a charitable act to help prevent spreading the flu to those who're less healthy? Or to prevent a few weeks of potential misery? If you live or work with high-risk people, maybe you'll decide that the shot is worth it.
You can also gauge your other lifestyle risks. We all know that spending a lot of time in busy public places -- like the subway or a gym -- boosts your risk of catching the flu. Anyone walking around with the virus can breathe it in your direction. And kids in day care or school are more likely to be exposed to the flu than anyone else. Just the simple act of living with them heightens your risk.
Is there a shot shortage?
You may remember the panic over vaccine shortages in 2004, when a major flu-vaccine manufacturer, Chiron, was unable to deliver 50 million doses of the vaccine due to bacterial contamination. Some experts speculate that the shortage encouraged people to stay away from the vaccine in the following years.
But Curtis Allen, spokesperson for the CDC, says a shortage is unlikely this year. Manufacturers are promising a record number of doses (132 million), although they won't all be available at once.
When's the best time of year to get vaccinated?
Now, before the flu season really kicks in from December to March, experts say. It takes about two weeks after vaccination for your body to build up enough antibodies to protect you.
Aren't I more likely to catch a cold than the flu?
For sure. There are more than 200 cold viruses, they mutate a lot, and virtually everybody comes down with one from time to time. Although the worst colds might feel like the flu, lots of people say they have the flu when they really don't. Two years ago, only 13 percent of people who were tested after reporting flu-like illnesses actually had the real thing.
Should I really worry about a flu epidemic?
Nobody really knows. The 1918 pandemic seemed to start like any old flu season, but within a few months the virus had mutated into a monster that killed healthy adults within a day. Like most flus, it may have originated in birds. That's why experts worry that today's avian flu may turn into a global epidemic. But, unlike the 1918 strain, it hasn't spread readily from person to person. And while the regular flu shot won't protect you against avian flu (it's a different strain of the virus), consider this: Researchers are finding that millions of people have been infected with avian flu without suffering serious complications. E-mail to a friend
All About Influenza • Contagious and Infectious Diseases • Vaccines
|
|